[TENCHI]

Restaurant manager fired for allowing employees to attend immigration rally


ASSOCIATED PRESS


SEATTLE -- When the 17 employees of Cafe Septieme, including 10 Hispanics, asked for Monday off to participate in an immigration rights march and rally, manager Vance Wolfe scheduled no one to work.
Wolfe reasoned that the owner, Victor Santiago, “couldn’t fire the entire staff.” Nor did he. The only one fired by Santiago was Wolfe.

“He made no schedule at all,” Santiago said, sitting in his other restaurant, La Cocina Santiago, a block away in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. “Why would I want him in a job like this?”

Wolfe, a Caucasian who worked for Santiago for nearly four years and was promoted from waiter to manager when the boss took over Cafe Septieme 1½ years ago, said Santiago had threatened to fire anyone who didn’t report for work but promised to pay extra to those who did.

He informed Santiago of his scheduling decision Saturday night.
“He pretty much fired me for supporting the staff and not supporting him,” Wolfe said while walking to the start of the march at 3:30 p.m.

At La Cocina, where about a third of the employees are Santiago’s relatives, no one scheduled to work Monday asked for the day off, the owner said.

“I’m Latino. I’m Hispanic,” he said. “Of course I support everything that’s going on (with the demonstration), but I’m a businessman. In a way, I’m in the middle.”

Wolfe’s co-workers offered to resign en masse if that would get him rehired, but Wolfe refused.

“I couldn’t be prouder of them,” he said.

Amanda Zumwalt, a bartender and server, said Wolfe was the best manager she had had in 13 years of restaurant work.

“He kind of took one for the whole team,” Zumwalt said.

Santiago said he might have made accommodations if the issue had been presented to him early enough to revise the work schedule to keep the restaurant open at least part of the day.

Jeremy Bang, a waiter, said employees advised the owner as early as several weeks ago that it was possible no one would come to work Monday, were told, “that’s absolutely not going to happen,” and after further discussion were warned not to raise the subject again.

[ALPINE6SPD]

Can that be legal?

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by ALPINE6SPD

Can that be legal?

why not?

[kal-el]

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by TENCHI

why not?

Employee rights. There are hordes upon hordes of them and the sad thing is that most typical workers don't even know that they possess such rights/protection.

In fact, most work-related lawsuits end in favor of the employee.

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Employee rights. There are hordes upon hordes of them and the sad thing is that most typical workers don't even know that they possess such rights/protection.

In fact, most work-related lawsuits end in favor of the employee.

wrong. this is a misconception. Most states are at will employment states...which means the employer can fire employees whenever they want. Now, this doesn't mean that they can say "hey...ur black...I hate black ppl, ur fired" They have to make sure its not discriminatory but for the most part, lawsuits do not end in favor of the employee.

[timzerofive]

If the employees doesn't show up to work, that's definitely ground for being fired. If the manager who's suppose to make sure the employees show up decided to not even schedule them, that's ground for being terminated also. I don't see how you could see it any other way.

[Squawks]

For most companies, they have to have a reason to fire you. If lack of competency is the reason, they have to show how or why.

This concept is called wronful termination. Read it up. Here, check out this law firm, for example: http://www.mawins.com/news/employment.html where they list that in 1995 (a decade ago) the median compensatory *award* for a wrongful termination case was $200,000 and that's 45% higher than the previous year.

Lawsuits by employees against employers are so abundant that most companies pay for Employment Practices Liability Insurance.

Another source: http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97t...ny%20lawsuits?

Plaintiffs win roughly 47-57% of the time in wrongful termination cases with 10% of all cases awarding punitive damages to them, with the average of 52%. That's siding with the plaintiffs.

Lastly, those are just cases - the number of settlements outside of courts has been increasing exponentially (meaning that companies know very well they'll lose and figure hell, let's not go to court and just settle it with cash).

EDIT: In this particular case, the employees can vouch to see if they have any paid-time-off they can use for the absence. Or any sick days they have remaining. Or some other sort of allowance granted to them, if any.

EDIT EDIT: The manager in this case who was fired could probably argue for wrongful termination - what was he supposed to do, coerce his staff to work?

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by Squawks

For most companies, they have to have a reason to fire you. If lack of competency is the reason, they have to show how or why.

This concept is called wronful termination. Read it up. Here, check out this law firm, for example: http://www.mawins.com/news/employment.html where they list that in 1995 (a decade ago) the median compensatory *award* for a wrongful termination case was $200,000 and that's 45% higher than the previous year.

Lawsuits by employees against employers are so abundant that most companies pay for Employment Practices Liability Insurance.

Another source: http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97t...ny%20lawsuits?

Plaintiffs win roughly 47-57% of the time in wrongful termination cases with 10% of all cases awarding punitive damages to them, with the average of 52%. That's siding with the plaintiffs.

Lastly, those are just cases - the number of settlements outside of courts has been increasing exponentially (meaning that companies know very well they'll lose and figure hell, let's not go to court and just settle it with cash).

EDIT: In this particular case, the employees can vouch to see if they have any paid-time-off they can use for the absence. Or any sick days they have remaining. Or some other sort of allowance granted to them, if any.

you didn't read the article did you. the employees were not fired for attending. the manager was for allowing them to leave. that could be chalked up as poor performance.

(i will get back to u about the employment laws)

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by Squawks

For most companies, they have to have a reason to fire you. If lack of competency is the reason, they have to show how or why.

This concept is called wronful termination. Read it up. Here, check out this law firm, for example: http://www.mawins.com/news/employment.html where they list that in 1995 (a decade ago) the median compensatory *award* for a wrongful termination case was $200,000 and that's 45% higher than the previous year.

Lawsuits by employees against employers are so abundant that most companies pay for Employment Practices Liability Insurance.

Another source: http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97t...ny%20lawsuits?

Plaintiffs win roughly 47-57% of the time in wrongful termination cases with 10% of all cases awarding punitive damages to them, with the average of 52%. That's siding with the plaintiffs.

Lastly, those are just cases - the number of settlements outside of courts has been increasing exponentially (meaning that companies know very well they'll lose and figure hell, let's not go to court and just settle it with cash).

EDIT: In this particular case, the employees can vouch to see if they have any paid-time-off they can use for the absence. Or any sick days they have remaining. Or some other sort of allowance granted to them, if any.

However unfair, for it to be the illegal act of wrongful termination, an employer must violate a specific state or Federal law, regulation or constitutional provision. Unfortunately, there's no such thing that generally protects employees from "crummy deals" per se. To further understand what legally constitutes wrongful termination, it's important to also note that most states consider employment to be "at will" in legal jargon. In plain English, the Employment at Will Doctrine means that, in the absence of employment contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee, you may quit your job whenever you want, usually without consequence. On the flip side, at-will employers may terminate you whenever they want, usually without consequence.

However, in many states employers must at least show "good cause" for terminating you. But good cause or not is often a matter of interpretation by the courts or arbitrators.

"
What Employment at Will Means

As are many employees only after the fact, you might be surprised to learn in advance that U.S. employers may legally fire you for just about any reason, no reason or even an unfair reason. That's partially because there are relatively few labor laws that protect workers from wrongful termination and none that generally protect from workplace "unfairness" per se. But it's more so because most states consider employment to be "at will" in legal jargon.

In plain English, the Employment At-Will Doctrine means that employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee under the doctrine, you may quit your job whenever and for whatever reason you want, usually without consequence. In turn, at-will employers may terminate you whenever and for whatever reason they want, usually without consequence.

Either party may end the relationship without prior notice, but neither party may breach contracts. Employers cannot violate state or Federal laws, and generally cannot rightfully terminate employees who refuse to do something that is contrary to public policy and sound morality, such as breaking the law. But with these few exceptions aside, it's pretty much open season on employees year round.
"


Justifiably Claiming Wrongful Termination

There is no wrongful termination law per se, but rather a variety of state and Federal laws with provisions that protect employees from it. Under such laws, wrongful termination might apply if your employer fired or laid you off, or forced you to quit or retire. Below are just a few examples of reasons to justifiably claim wrongful termination.
Discrimination

Employers can't legally terminate you solely on the basis of gender, race, creed, disability and a variety of other discriminatory reasons. But if a discrimination isn't specifically covered by a law, you are not generally protected from that type of discrimination.

For example, if your boss fires you simply because he or she doesn't like you on a personal level, good cause or not aside, that's not discrimination by law. But, if you can prove that he or she doesn't like you for one of the reasons protected by law, and furthermore, that's why he or she fired you, then it's discrimination and you likely have a winnable case.
Retaliation

Employers can't rightfully terminate you for reporting their illegal actions to the proper authorities (commonly called whistle blowing). They also can't axe you in retaliation for something you legally did or they illegally did, or because you refused to do something that was contrary to public policy and sound morality, such as breaking the law.

For example, if your boss fires you because you filed a legit worker's compensation claim or didn't yield to his or her sexual advances, you probably have a good shot at winning a lawsuit.
Defamation of Character

You might be able to sue for wrongful termination if your employer intentionally defamed you to justify terminating you.

For example, if your employer falsely accuses you of stealing as an excuse to fire you, you might have a case for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Breach of Explicit or Implied Contract

If you work on contract for a specified period and are satisfying the terms, employers typically can't terminate your contract without good cause before the specified period ends. (Union workers, athletes, actors, upper management, independent contractors and such, usually work on contract.) But if your contract includes an "escape clause" indicating that either party may end the relationship without consequence, that's likely good cause enough without further explanation.

In the absence of explicit contracts, some states might consider employers' policy manuals, employee handbooks, employee agreements and similar documents as binding, implied or "implied-in-fact" contracts of continued employment, depending on how they're worded. But that's usually if employers don't explicitly document the terms of employment at will and good cause for termination.

According to the landmark, 1988 decision in the Foley vs. Interactive Data Corp. case in California, states might also consider an employee's chain of promotions, raises, great merit reviews, and verbal assurances of job security as an implied-in-fact contract. But not all state courts acknowledge the so-called Foley criteria to the letter, and remember that employment agreement you signed way back when you were hired? You might have let your employer off the hook, if it included an acknowledgement that such things do not constitute a contract or guarantee of continued employment.
Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

"Good faith and fair dealing" is an implied covenant that employees deserve to be treated fairly by their employers, especially dedicated, long-term employees.

Examples of an employer's breach of this covenant include firing employees to avoid granting the rewards they've earned and manufacturing reasons to fire employees. But not all states recognize breach of this covenant as a wrongful-termination exception to the Employment at Will Doctrine.

[Squawks]

In this example I'm talking on behalf of the manager. Sure, poor performance could be a valid reason for his termination.

I did read the article. My first EDIT was directed towards tzf regarding not showing up to work.

My 2nd EDIT was reserved for the fired manager. In his case the owner has a good point in arguing for poor performance but either way it would still be a tough case.

[thedean786]

wow that just sucks, the restaurant should be burned down with the manager inside...

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by thedean786

wow that just sucks, the restaurant should be burned down with the manager inside...

why the manager?

[TENCHI]

http://www.employmentlawattorney.com...ermination.htm


The subject of wrongful employment termination is extremely broad and can only be briefly touched upon here. Generally speaking, California law follows the "at-will" employment doctrine. Under this doctrine, an employer generally is free to terminate or demote an employee with or without just cause. However, there are numerous exceptions to this doctrine, many of which are discussed on this website. Some examples include being fired or demoted because of unlawful discrimination, or in retaliation for reporting safety complaints or illegal conduct by the employer. These exceptions permit even an "at-will" employee to bring a legal action against his or her employer for wrongful termination or demotion. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated or demoted from your employment, please feel free to contact us. You can submit your information online by clicking on this link.

[Squawks]

Those are at-will jobs.

Almost all Fortune 500 companies today are horrified of firing people and when they do, they make sure they have good reason(s) to do so. That's why most companies go with temporary/probation/recruiting positions first so that they can indeed 'fire at will'.

Excluding 'fire at will' positions there are more complexities thrown in. Labor unions, for example, lend a bit of protection and the number of employees in unions today is quite high.

Those reasons are also quite vague and can be exploited by our legal system today. Plaintiffs are winning huge piles of cash for being fired for silly reasons such as wearing smelly perfumes to work (true case).

[Squawks]

Hey, Tenchi - your bolded sentence in your post above mines only bolstered my argument against yours. Even 'at-will' employees can sue (and win) against employers upon being fired for wrongful termination.

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Hey, Tenchi - your bolded sentence in your post above mines only bolstered my argument against yours. Even 'at-will' employees can sue (and win) against employers upon being fired for wrongful termination.

yes, only exceptions...which I outlined above. Unless it was discriminatory or something against the law....you cannot sue under wrongful termination (or rather successully sue and win) It doesn't bolster ur argument

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Those are at-will jobs.

Almost all Fortune 500 companies today are horrified of firing people and when they do, they make sure they have good reason(s) to do so. That's why most companies go with temporary/probation/recruiting positions first so that they can indeed 'fire at will'.

Excluding 'fire at will' positions there are more complexities thrown in. Labor unions, for example, lend a bit of protection and the number of employees in unions today is quite high.

Those reasons are also quite vague and can be exploited by our legal system today. Plaintiffs are winning huge piles of cash for being fired for silly reasons such as wearing smelly perfumes to work (true case).

Most states (if not all) automatically consider all employees to be at-will.


large companies and corporations (including those that hire thru labor unions) take it a step further to ensure at-will employment contract is in writing to make sure wrongful termination lawsuits don't happen.

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by TENCHI

large companies and corporations (including those that hire thru labor unions) take it a step further to ensure at-will employment contract is in writing to make sure wrongful termination lawsuits don't happen.

Even when it's in writing they can and still get sued today. And lose money.

Same goes with doctors in experimental trials with novel drugs - even when the consent form is clearly listing all of the dangers (including potential death), the relatives of someone who dies from the experiment can still sue (and win) enormous cash amounts.

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Even when it's in writing they can and still get sued today. And lose money.

Same goes with doctors in experimental trials with novel drugs - even when the consent form is clearly listing all of the dangers (including potential death), the relatives of someone who dies from the experiment can still sue (and win) enormous cash amounts.

can they sue? sure, but with at will employment its much harder to successfully sue and win. The people that "win" their cases are ones that have either been wronged in the way mentioned before OR....the companies decided to save a little PR and settle out of court. However, winning is very rare.

[Squawks]

Off-topic but btw, Tenchi - your avatar is the same as a fellow E90 member, Docbolo - I actually thought you were him at first especially when you threw a tirade at USAF BMW (Doc did the same when someone said he couldn't benchpress 315)

[TENCHI]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Off-topic but btw, Tenchi - your avatar is the same as a fellow E90 member, Docbolo - I actually thought you were him at first especially when you threw a tirade at USAF BMW (Doc did the same when someone said he couldn't benchpress 315)

oh, u mean the Playboy bunny? lol I had Bruce Lee but that seemed a lil too.....stereotypical (since I am asian) I wanted my sig on there but its too big.


yeah, I didn't mean to throw my temper (i hope u saw my apology) but he got under my skin for calling me ignorant and foolish.